Quoted in a new report,
Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded UK forced in the
First Gulf War, argued “strategic nuclear weapons have no
military use.”

“It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident
simply to remain a nuclear power alongside the other four
permanent members of the UN Security Council.

“This is misguided and flies in the face of public opinion;
we have more to offer than nuclear bombs.”

The report by the Nuclear Information Service and the Nuclear
Education Trust, ‘British military attitudes to nuclear
weapons and disarmament,’ offers a major insight into
military thinking on Trident.

The report found that while a majority of former military
personnel interviewed support the replacement of Trident, that
view is by no means unanimous. Many are expressing concerns about
the cost of nuclear weapons and their use as political rather
than defensive tools.

A number of interviewees downplayed concerns over the safety of
nuclear weapons, a position which is again not unanimous across
the armed forces.

Nuclear whistleblower William McNeilly was recently discharged
from the Royal Navy after raising safety and security concerns in
an extensive dossier he published online in May.

After his discharge, NcNeilly published a fresh nine-page
document rebuking what he called naval “spin doctors”
over their response to his findings.

“It is shocking that some people in a military force can be
more concerned about public image than public safety,” he
said.

In his original dossier, McNeilly raised up to 30 issues
regarding nuclear weapons safety and base security.

The Navy immediately claimed McNeilly’s allegations were
“subjective and unsubstantiated” and “factually
incorrect or the result of misunderstanding or partial
understanding.”